What is in the Poop?

Aughie and Nia discuss the Recess Appointment Clause, in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.

Aughie and Nia explore the career of Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic American to serve as U.S. Attorney General. 

Nia and Aughie look at competing District Court rulings regarding the Constitutionality of the Congressional ban on home brewing of alcoholic beverages.

Aughie and Nia explore the storied career of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno.

Aughie and Nia discuss the strange cases of government investigating evidence of drug use or illness in municipal wastewater systems.

Nia and Aughie start the new season with a salty discussion of what can legally appear on your license plate. This episode is in response to a case working its way through the Virginia legal system (and then possibly the Supreme Court), Whateley v. Lackey. 

Aughie and Nia finish this year's big Supreme Court rulings with three cases: Chatrie v United States, Monsanto Company v Durnell, and Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. Chatrie centered on the use of geofencing warrants under the 4th Amendment. Monsanto argued that only the EPA could label its products cancer-causing, which the EPA has declined to do. Landor centered on immunity of guards to be individually sued for violating a prisoner's religious rights.

Aughie and Nia discuss the Supreme Court opinions in Trump V Barbara, Trump v. Cook, and Trump V Slaughter. In Trump v Barbara, the justices were asked to decide whether Trump's Executive Order banning birthright citizenship was legal. In Trump v Cook, the Court decided whether Trump was allowed to fire a Federal Reserve Board Governor. In the final case of this episode, the Justices addressed whether Trump could fire a Federal Trade Commissioner.

Aughie and Nia discuss the Supreme Court decisions in Watson v RNC, National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission and West Virginia v BJP combined with Little v Hecox.  In the first case, the Justices were asked to define "elections" in terms of mail in voting ballot acceptance. In the second, they addressed the national political parties coordinating spending with candidates. In the final two cases, combined into one decision, the Justices wrestled with questions surrounding allowing transgender female athletes to compete on women's teams.